Africa-Press. The High Court in the Western Cape has ruled in favor of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, granting his request for a temporary court order to halt parliamentary accountability proceedings related to the case known as the “Phala Phala scandal.”
The court, convened in Cape Town, issued its decision after two days of hearings before judges Andre le Grange, Matthew Francis, and Diane Davis.
Ramaphosa Challenges the Section 89 Committee Report
Ramaphosa sought to prevent the initiation of the impeachment inquiry until a separate judicial review he filed challenging the report of the independent committee established under Section 89 of the Constitution is resolved.
Section 89 allows for the removal of the President under specific circumstances, including violations of the Constitution or the law, gross misconduct, or incapacity to perform the duties of the office.
This section has long been present in constitutional texts more than in political reality, until its implementation rules were developed after 2018 through the establishment of clearer mechanisms, including the formation of an independent committee and a parliamentary committee for impeachment.
This section has become the focal point of the conflict between the President and his opponents, as Parliament has relied on it to reopen the impeachment file concerning Ramaphosa related to the “Phala Phala scandal.”
In a broader legal battle, the President seeks to annul the findings of the independent committee, which concluded that there are questions he must answer regarding the theft of approximately $580,000 (equivalent to about 9.6 million South African rand) from his private farm “Phala Phala” in Limpopo Province in February 2020.
During court sessions, Ramaphosa’s legal team argued that urgent judicial intervention is necessary, explaining that if the temporary court order is not issued, the accountability committee could commence its work before a ruling on the legality of the independent committee’s findings.
The President’s lawyers asserted that this would cause him “irreparable harm.”
Judge Andre le Grange stated on Friday that the court carefully considered all arguments presented by various parties and concluded with three separate rulings.
He explained that the first ruling found that Ramaphosa did not succeed in proving the legal grounds for his request, thus recommending the dismissal of the case.
However, the second and third rulings granted the President a temporary court order for a specified period.
Under this decision, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thandi Modise, as the first defendant, along with the Chair of the parliamentary accountability committee, was ordered to suspend all proceedings until a ruling is issued in the judicial review case.
The court also postponed the decision on legal costs until after the review case is concluded.
Le Grange concluded the ruling by stating, “This is our ruling.”
The Presidency Welcomes the Ruling
The South African President’s office welcomed the court decision, stating in a press release: “The President reaffirms his respect for the independence of the judiciary and the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.”
The statement added: “The President will continue to cooperate with all accountability mechanisms and adhere to the relevant procedures.”
This legal battle follows a ruling issued by the Constitutional Court last May, which found that Parliament acted unlawfully when it halted accountability proceedings against Ramaphosa in preparation for his impeachment in December 2022.
As a result, the National Assembly was mandated to form an official committee to examine the allegations against the President.
The committee consists of 31 parliamentary members representing 16 political parties, chaired by the chief organizer of the “Rise Mzansi” party, Makashuli Ghana.
The High Court in the Western Cape is scheduled to consider Ramaphosa’s judicial review request from September 2 to 4.
The Phala Phala Case
The roots of the case date back to February 2020 when President Ramaphosa’s “Phala Phala” farm in Limpopo Province (northeast) was robbed.
According to the account provided by the President later, the thieves managed to steal $580,000 that was hidden inside furniture on the farm, specifically inside a couch.
However, the incident did not become a political issue until nearly two years later when former South African intelligence chief Arthur Fraser revealed details in an official complaint submitted to the authorities.
Fraser accused the President of covering up the theft and failing to inform law enforcement appropriately, raising questions about the source of the funds and the nature of their storage on the farm.
Since then, the case has evolved into a complex political and legal file intertwining constitutional law, foreign exchange laws, and presidential accountability rules.
The main allegations against President Cyril Ramaphosa focus on several points.
– First, suspicions regarding the source of the funds that were present on the farm, especially since the amounts were in US dollars.
– Second, allegations concerning how the authorities handled the incident and whether all legal procedures were followed after the theft occurred.
– Third, the possibility of violating certain laws related to financial disclosure and foreign currency control.
Ramaphosa has consistently denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the funds came from a legitimate deal for the sale of African buffalo as part of his cattle farming business.
He also emphasized that all allegations against him lack evidence proving any illegal conduct.
